Source:
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/061106_hacking_democracy.html

(Go to main source link above to see video documentary within article
and mainstream news, documents and other article links within this live
article...thank you)

The Voting Machine Documentary Diebold Didn't Want You to See...

And the Princeton, John Hopkins/Rice U. Studies on Machine Vulnerability
Diebold Considers 'Unrealistic and Inaccurate'

Aaron Dykes/ Jones Report | November 6, 2006

How very telling it is that Diebold pressured HBO to cancel the airing
of this documentary just days before tomorrow's midterm elections.
Fortunately, subsidiary of mega-corporation Time Warner did not cave to
the guilty psychology of the Diebold or other electronic voting
companies pleading to hide just suspicion of the 'fallible' system
behind our vote.


(FULL DOCUMENTARY VIDEO)


The documentary, Hacking Democracy, did in fact air on HBO Thursday,
November 3, 2006. It is based on the research of Bev Harris and Black
Box Voting (blackboxvoting.org), as well as that of other entities.

While known problems with the electronic voting machines in 2000, 2002
and 2004 have been generically answered away with dubious ideas of
'incompetence' or 'confusion,'-- when these clearly at least raise
serious questions, the companies like Diebold who manufacture these
machines (see also ES&S, Hart InterCivic and Sequoia, all linked to the
GOP) seem to hold a converse and hypocritical universal dismissal of any
inquiries, tests or evaluations.

Consider the Diebold response to a Princeton study that showed the
machines could easily be manipulated with little chance of detection.
The Princeton group specifically checked out the Diebold AccuVote-TS,
the most widely deployed machines for use in the November 7 U.S.
elections and found that they could be compromised through software
written to steal-votes or modify records. The machines are vulnerable to
physical interference wherein anyone with access to the voting machine
install this type of software in less then one minute.

However, Diebold responded to the Princeton study only by calling it
'unrealistic and erroneous.'

But is that also true of joint-research efforts by John Hopkins and Rice
Universities? They also found that electronic voting systems are
'vulnerable to tampering.'

A University of Iowa computer science professor warns of counties who
rely on "inadequate security documents written by the voting machine
manufacturers." The same article reveals another worried computer
scientist at the University of California, Berkeley. He says, "With this
technology, we cannot be certain that our elections have not been
corrupted."

When Rolling Stone published an article written by Robert F. Kennedy,
Jr., on Diebold's role in delivering the Georgia vote to the Republican
party, Diebold claims that the story "falls short of journalistic
standards" and is full of "mischaracterization" and other flaws.

The Wall Street Journal layed out any number of scenarios which could
make the midterm elections go wrong.

Greg Palast is so certain of election wrong-doing in this midterm, he
has released a past-tense article the day before the November 7, 2006
election entitled, "HOW THEY STOLE THE MID-TERM ELECTION."

The SEC is also investigating accounting irregularies.

Yet, Diebold continues to act guilty, acting like it has something to
hide and still pretending that it is some kind of upstanding, neutral
corporation. Never mind that the owner of Diebold pledged his commitment
"to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year"
in 2003.

But in the end, Diebold continues to operate much like any other arm of
the Bush Administration-- pretend any criticisms or charges are
outrageous in the face of obvious criminal and/or unethical behavior
that it rightly assumes no one will bring to a halt. How much longer can
things go on like this?

Diebold Inc. sent a letter to HBO CEO Chris Albrecht, concerned about
"Hacking Democracy" airing before elections and calling it-- of course--
"inaccurate and unfair."

"We believe the film contains significant factual errors and does not
meet HBO's standards for accuracy and fairness," Byrd wrote in the
letter sent Monday.

By all means, let us continue to take the word of a partisan company
readying for its fourth run of smoke-and-mirrors for another stolen
election who at a minimal have seriously questionable conflicts of
interest.

Let us please put aside information in question of Diebold and other
electronic voting machines developed through research and testing. Isn't
it obvious that Diebold's credibility automatically outweighs Princeton
University and Black Box Voting.org and Rolling Stone's reporting, along
with that of most-- if not all-- the network and cable news agencies,
all of which have been investigating the many faceted problems we can
expect to face with electronic voting through another high-stakes and
untrustable election.

HBO and those involved with its decision to continue airing "Hacking
Democracy" should be commended for refusing to be bullied by a criminal
operation lurking just behind the shadows, all but out in the open.

People should be at least skeptical of electronic voting machines until
they are thrown out for good or become somehow verifiably unbiased and
no longer subject to malicious or even haphazard manipulation.

As soon as ANY results based process becomes computerized it becomes
suspect.